The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Friday, August 19, 2016

The dreamers in English still have it: "Hamas and Israel, Israel and
Hamas. Maybe one day...who knows." And then the Arabic-language truth
rolls in: "Death to Israel, always!"

"The Islamic Resistance
Movement (Hamas) believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic
Wakf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no
one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. There is
no solution to the Palestinian problem except Jihad." — Hamas Charter.

Hamas's decision to participate in the upcoming local and
municipal elections will further strengthen the movement and pave the
way for it to extend its control from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.

"The Zionist entity will not be part of this region. We will
continue to resist it until the liberation of our land and the return of
our people." — Musa Abu Marzouk, senior Hamas official.

How precisely Hamas intends to "serve" the Palestinians by
running in the elections is somewhat murky. Abu Marzouk did not talk
about building new schools and parks for the Palestinians. When he talks
about "serving" the people, he means only one thing: recruiting
Palestinians to Hamas and jihad against Israel and the Jews.

The dreamers in English still have it: "Hamas and Israel, Israel and
Hamas. Maybe one day...who knows." And then the Arabic-language truth
rolls in: "Death to Israel, always!"

Some Arab and Western political analysts have mistakenly interpreted
Hamas's agreement to participate in the Palestinian local and municipal
elections, scheduled for October 8, as a sign of the movement's
"pragmatism" and march toward recognizing Israel's right to exist.

They falsely assume that Hamas's readiness to take part in the
democratic process shows that the leaders of the extremist movement are
also prepared to abandon their dream of destroying Israel and abandoning
the "armed struggle" against it.

These arguments about Hamas's purported "pragmatism" and "moderation"
were also made back in 2006, when Hamas contested the Palestinian
parliamentary election. Then too, many political analysts claimed that
Hamas's decision to run in the election was an encouraging sign that the
movement has endorsed a new, moderate approach toward Israel and the
peace process.

Reality, however, has proven these assumptions utterly false. Hamas's
victory in the 2006 parliamentary election did not bring about any
changes in its extremist ideology. Hamas did not change its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel. Nor did Hamas abandon its murderous terrorist attacks against Israelis.

To recall, here is what the Hamas charter openly states about this issue:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] believes that
the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Wakf throughout the
generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or
part of it, or abandon it or part of it. There is no solution to the
Palestinian problem except Jihad. The liberation of that land is an
individual duty binding on all Muslims everywhere. In order to face the
usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from rising the
banner of Jihad. This would require the propagation of Islamic
consciousness among the masses on all local, Arab and Islamic levels. We
must spread the spirit of Jihad among the Islamic Umma [nation], clash
with the enemies and join the ranks of the Jihad fighters."

The 2006 Hamas victory, in fact, further emboldened Hamas and
increased its determination to stick to its ideology and terrorism, in
addition to the indoctrination and incitement against Israel. The
following year, in 2007, Hamas even waged a coup against the Palestinian
Authority (PA) and seized full control over the Gaza Strip.

Likewise, Hamas's decision to participate in the upcoming local and
municipal elections will further strengthen the movement and pave the
way for it to extend its control from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.

So, an electoral win or loss for Hamas is totally irrelevant. Hamas
is not going to change its ideology or soften its position toward Israel
and the "peace process." And, of course, Hamas is not going to
recognize Israel's right to exist. Its leaders continue to assure their
people of that -- in public and on a daily basis.

As in the parliamentary election, Hamas may even emerge stronger and
more resolved, especially if it wins the upcoming local and municipal
elections, as it seems destined to do.

Hamas sees its participation in elections as a golden opportunity for
"the reinforcement of its positions and for the encouragement of its
Jihad," as it clearly and unequivocally states in its charter.

In other words, Hamas sees elections as a chance to pursue its fight
to eliminate Israel. So Hamas is not running in the upcoming elections
in order to provide the Palestinians with improved municipal services,
but, as it states in its charter, "in order to make possible the next
round with the Jews, the merchants of war" and "until liberation is
completed, the invaders are vanquished and Allah's victory sets in."

Yet, incredibly, some Western political analysts and Palestinian
affairs "experts" dismiss the Hamas charter as irrelevant. This
dismissal is now based on statements attributed sporadically to some
Hamas leaders and spokesmen in various media outlets. These comments
are, for them, "encouraging" and "positive" signs from Hamas. They even
take the foolhardy step of advising world leaders to listen to these
voices and take them into account when dealing with Hamas.

Let us examine, for a moment, one of those statements.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal was recently reported to have voiced his
movement's readiness to recognize Israel's right to exit if it withdrew
to the pre-1967 lines, namely the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza
Strip (Israel already pulled out of the Gaza Strip in 2005).

Mashaal is reported
to have told representatives of Asian media organizations during a
briefing in Doha, Qatar, that he was prepared to accept Israel's right
to exist and the "two-state solution."

Within hours, the Hamas leadership denied that Mashaal had made such
remarks concerning Israel's right to exist. Hamas called the reports
"lies" and "fabrications" and reiterated its refusal to recognize
Israel's right to exist. "These suspicious and fabricated statements are
aimed at distorting the image and positions of Hamas and its
leadership," read a statement issued by the Islamist movement in the Gaza Strip.Slander and defamation: that is how Hamas views the talk about its
leaders' purported readiness to recognize Israel. This, to them, is the
worst thing that could happen to Hamas -- to accept the presence of
Israel in the Middle East. The Hamas denial is aimed at protecting its
reputation and image in the eyes of its supporters, lest they believe,
God forbid, that the Islamist movement has abandoned its desire to
eliminate Israel.

To set the record straight, another senior Hamas official, Musa Abu Marzouk, declared
this week: "The Zionist entity will not be part of this region. We will
continue to resist it until the liberation of our land and the return
of our people." With tongue in cheek, Abu Marzouk, who is being groomed
as a potential successor to Mashaal, stated that Hamas's goal behind its
decision to participate in the October 8 local and municipal elections
was to "serve our people." Addressing his rivals in President Mahmoud
Abbas's Fatah faction, the top Hamas official added: "Our differences
will not reach the level of enmity. Our only enemy is Israel. Our
political rivalry should not exceed its limit."

How precisely Hamas intends to "serve" the Palestinians by running in
the elections is somewhat murky. Abu Marzouk did not talk about
building new schools and parks for the Palestinians. When he talks about
"serving" the people, he means only one thing: recruiting Palestinians
to Hamas and jihad against Israel and the Jews.

In recent weeks, Hamas supporters have been launching various campaigns
highlighting the Islamist movement's "achievements" in the Gaza Strip
in a bid to win the hearts and minds of voters. One campaign, entitled,
"A More Beautiful Gaza," features scenes of clean streets and public
parks in some parts of the Gaza Strip. Yet the rosy picture that Hamas
is painting is silent as to the extraordinarily high rate of
unemployment and poverty in the Gaza Strip, or the fact that thousands
of Palestinian families have lost their homes in wars with Israel that
were the direct result of bombarding Israel with rockets and missiles.
Nor does the campaign talk about Hamas's repressive measures against
women and journalists.This campaign of disinformation is aimed at persuading Palestinian
voters that the two million residents of the Gaza Strip are living in a
utopia under Hamas, and that this experience now needs to be copied in
the West Bank.

There is no doubt that many Palestinians will fall into this trap and
cast their ballots for Hamas. They will do so because they will be
convinced that Hamas will solve all their economic and social problems
and bring them peace and stability at home. But many Palestinians will
also vote for Hamas for other reasons. The first of these is that they
identify with Hamas's ideology, as expressed in its charter, and believe
that jihad is the only way to "liberate Palestine." Second, Hamas has
managed to convince a large number of Palestinians that a vote for
another party or candidate other than Hamas would be a vote against
Islam and Allah.

History seems to be repeating itself and the lessons from the Hamas
victory in the 2006 parliamentary election have not been learned. Hamas
is fooling not only many Palestinians by promising them a better life
and prosperity under its rule; it is also fooling some Westerners, who
talk about "signs of moderation and pragmatism" coming from the Islamist
movement.Since its establishment in 1987, Hamas has been single-minded about
its charter-documented desire to wage jihad against Israel. Its leaders
continue to state this in Arabic on a daily basis. It is not rocket
science: the movement has not changed and will not do so in the future,
regardless of whether it wins or loses any election.

Hamas has made itself perfectly clear. What is not so clear is why
some Westerners continue to talk about its "policy shifts." Also
difficult to understand is why some in the West are not asking President
Abbas and his Palestinian Authority what they intend to do if and when
Hamas wins the local and municipal elections. Finally, why Abbas is
pushing ahead with preparations for the elections, when he knows that
his Fatah faction could easily lose to Hamas, is a true mystery.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8704/zionist-entity Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

According to Article 80
of the U.N. Charter, and the Mandate for Palestine, the ‎‎1967 war of
self-defense returned Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to its ‎legal
owner, the Jewish state

The misperceptions,
misrepresentations and ignorance over the legal status of Jewish
settlements in the disputed ‎area of Judea and Samaria reflect the
general attitude ‎toward the unique phenomenon of the reconstruction of
the Jewish national ‎home in Israel.‎

‎"Fidelity to law is
the essence of peace," opined Professor Eugene Rostow, a former dean of
the Yale University Law School, undersecretary of state and a co-author
of ‎the Nov. 22, 1967, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. Rostow
resolved ‎that under international law, "Jews have the same right to
settle in the West ‎Bank as they have in Haifa." ‎

Rostow determined that
according to Resolution 242, "Israel is required to withdraw 'from
territories,' not 'the' territories, ‎nor from 'all' the territories,
but 'some' of the territories, which included the ‎West Bank, East
Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Desert and the Golan ‎Heights."

Moreover, "resolutions
calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territories ‎were defeated in the
Security Council and the General Assembly. ... Israel was ‎not to be
forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' [9- to 15-mile wide] lines
... but ‎to 'secure and recognized' boundaries, agreed to by the
parties. ... In making ‎peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from
the entire Sinai ... [which ‎amounts to] more than 90% of the
territories occupied in 1967."‎

Former International
Court of Justice President Judge Stephen ‎M. Schwebel stated: "[The
1967] Israeli conquest of territory was defensive ‎rather than
aggressive ... [as] indicated by Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of
‎Tiran, blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the amassing of
[Egyptian] ‎troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of the U.N.
Emergency Force ... [and] ‎Jordan's initiated hostilities against
Israel. ... The 1948 Arab invasion of the ‎nascent State of Israel
further demonstrated that Egypt's seizure of the Gaza ‎Strip, and
Jordan's seizure and subsequent annexation of the West Bank and ‎the Old
city of Jerusalem, were unlawful. ... Between Israel, acting
defensively ‎in 1948 and 1967 ‎‏]‏according to Article 52 of the U.N.
Charter‏[‏‎, on the one hand, ‎and her Arab neighbors, acting
aggressively in 1948 and 1967, on the other, ‎Israel has better title in
the territory of what was [British Mandate] Palestine, ‎including the
whole of Jerusalem. ... It follows that modifications of the 1949
‎armistice lines among those states within former Palestinian territory
are ‎lawful." ‎

The legal status of
Judea and Samaria is embedded in the following ‎authoritative, binding,
internationally ratified treaties, which recognized that ‎the area has
been the cradle of Jewish history, culture, aspirations and ‎religion:‎

1. The Nov. 2, 1917
Balfour Declaration, issued by Britain, called for "the ‎establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

2. The April 24, 1920
resolution, adopted by the post-World War I San ‎Remo Peace Conference
of the Allied Powers Supreme Council, incorporated ‎the Balfour
Declaration, entrusting both sides of the Jordan River to the ‎Mandate
for Palestine: "The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into
‎effect the [Balfour] declaration ... in favor of the establishment in
Palestine of a ‎national home for the Jewish people." It was one of over
20 mandates ‎‎(trusteeships) established following World War I,
responsible for most boundaries in ‎the Middle East.

3. The Mandate for
Palestine, ratified on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the ‎League of
Nations, entrusted Britain to establish a Jewish state in the entire
‎area west of the Jordan River, as demonstrated by Article 6: "[To]
encourage ... ‎close settlement by Jews on the land, including state
lands and waste ‎lands." The mandate is dedicated exclusively to Jewish
national rights.

4. The Oct. 24, 1945
Article 80 of the U.N. Charter incorporated the ‎Mandate for Palestine
into the U.N. Charter. Accordingly, the U.N. or any other ‎entity cannot
transfer Jewish rights in Palestine, including immigration and
‎settlement, to any other party.‎

The Nov. 29, 1947 U.N.
General Assembly Partition Resolution 181 was a ‎nonbinding
recommendation -- as are all General Assembly resolutions -- ‎superseded
by the binding Mandate for Palestine. The 1949 Armistice ‎Agreements
between Israel and its neighbors delineated the pre-1967 ‎cease-fire --
non-ratified -- boundaries. ‎

According to Article 80
of the U.N. Charter, and the Mandate for Palestine, the ‎‎1967 war of
self-defense returned Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to its ‎legal
owner, the Jewish state. Legally and geo-strategically the rules of
‎‎"belligerent occupation" do not apply to Israel's presence in Judea
and ‎Samaria since the area is not "foreign territory" and Jordan did
not have a ‎legitimate title over the area in 1967. Also, the rules of
"belligerent occupation" ‎do not apply in view of the 1994 Israel-Jordan
peace treaty. ‎

While the 1949 Fourth
Geneva Convention prohibits the forced transfer of ‎populations to areas
previously occupied by a legitimate sovereign power, ‎Israel has not
forced Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria, and Jordan was not
‎recognized, internationally, as its legitimate sovereign power. ‎

Furthermore, the 1993
Oslo Accord and the 1995 Israel-Palestinian Authority ‎Interim Agreement
do not prohibit Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, ‎stipulating
that the issue will be negotiated during the permanent status
‎negotiations, enabling each party to plan, zone and build in areas
under its ‎control. If Israeli construction prejudices negotiation then
Arab construction -- ‎which is dramatically larger -- dramatically
prejudices negotiation. ‎

Finally, the term
"Palestine" was a Roman attempt -- following the 135 C.E. ‎Jewish
rebellion -- to eradicate Jews and Judaism from human memory. It
‎substituted "Israel, Judea and Samaria" with "Palaestina," a derivative
of the ‎Philistines, an archenemy of the Jewish people whose origin was
not in ‎Arabia but the Greek Aegean islands. ‎

The campaign against
legal Jewish settlements in the disputed -- rather than ‎occupied --
area of Judea and Samaria is based on gross misrepresentations, ‎fueling
infidelity to law, which undermines the pursuit of peace.‎

Yoram EttingerSource: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=16967 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Iran's
deepening military cooperation with Russia serves as a hedge, in the
Iranian calculus, against any unilateral Israeli attack on its nuclear
facilities during an interregnum between the Obama era and the
inauguration of the next U.S. President in January 2017.

Moscow probably enjoys filling a vacuum created by U.S. refusal
to be drawn too deeply into Syria's civil war. Additionally, Russia's
air force is profiting by targeting training under wartime conditions,
with little loss of personnel and equipment. Russia also most likely
hopes to become the main arms supplier to Iran.

Iran's Supreme National Security Council admitted on August 16 that
Tehran is permitting Russian military aircraft to stage operations
against Syrian rebels from an Iranian airbase.[1] Satellite photography previously confirmed Russian military aircraft on the tarmac of Iran's Shahid Nojeh Airfield in 2015.

This is the first time, however, that Tehran is publicly confirming that it is allowing advanced Russian long-range bombers to use its main air base in Hamadan Province.

Previously, Russia's aircraft ran bombing missions from Russian
airbases in the Caspian Region and from Syria's Latakia/Hmyemim
(Naval/Air) complex. While the Hmyemim Airfield was adequate for Russian
fighter-bomber aircraft such as the SU-24 (Fencer), the SU-34
(Fullback) and Moscow's attack helicopters, to conduct missions inside
Syria, the runway is not long enough to accommodate heavier types of
bombers. The runway at Hamadan is 15,000 feet long, permitting Russia's
TU-160 (Blackjack), TU-22 (Backfire), and older Bear (TU-95) long-range
bombers to stage operations.[2]

The Kremlin no doubt requested access to Iranian military facilities
for similar reasons that the United States sought permission from Turkey
to use its base at Incirlik: The bombers would be closer to their
targets, which are presumably terrorist formations amidst the anti-Assad
rebel groups. Flying Russian aircraft to Syria from Iran's Hamadan
airfield, rather than from Russia, cuts the distance by approximately
1000 miles. With the lessened amount of fuel needed, there is "room" for
heavier payloads to use on the targets. Additionally, Hamadan airfield
features several hangars for aircraft repair and bunkers for pilot rest
and recreation.

Geopolitical reasons that are associated with this deepening
Russian-Iranian cooperation include increased Iranian casualties and
recent rebel gains, both causes for concern to Iran's high command. In
addition, Iran's deepening military cooperation with Russia serves as a
hedge in the Iranian calculus against any unilateral Israeli attack on
its nuclear facilities during an interregnum between the Obama era and
the inauguration of the next U.S. president in January 2017.

Moscow probably enjoys filling a vacuum created by U.S. refusal to be
drawn too deeply into Syria's civil war. Additionally, Russia's air
force is profiting by targeting training under wartime conditions, with
little loss of personnel and equipment. Russia also most likely hopes to
become the main arms supplier to Iran. Finally, both Russia and Iran
view the possibility of a Sunni extremist regime in Syria as not in
their interest. Russia already fears the return of thousands of Muslims
who traveled from the North Caucasus and Central Asia to fight with the
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

There is, however a downside for the Iranian regime. Russia has had a long predatory interest in Iran. In the late 19th and first half of the 20th
centuries, Russia cooperated with Great Britain in dividing Iran into
spheres of interest. Soviet Russia, after World War II, even occupied
northern Iran for a brief period. Tehran's granting the Kremlin access
to its airfields contradicts Imam Khomeini's ideological formula:
"Neither East nor West." Khomeini was contemptuous of both the United
States and the Soviet Union. He promised that Iran would stand on its
own and not submit to the will of either superpower.

The Iranian regime's internal opposition might exploit this
concession to a foreign power in a similar manner as did the Islamists
against the late Shah. The Islamic revolutionaries accused the Shah of
having capitulated to America by allowing American servicemen special
legal status, not being subject to Iranian law. The revolutionaries won
Iranian nationalists to their side by these attacks on the Shah's
alleged lack of patriotism.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the
U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a
Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

[1] Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani confirms the story in Iranian media.[2]
Numerous RT Russian Videos showing Russian bombing runs by various long
range bombers inside Syria from Russian airbases like Lipetsk Airfield
in Russia and from other bases including Hmyemim in Syria. See Open
source material on NATO names of Russian bombers and use of Iran's
airbase in Hamadan Province.

Lawrence A. Franklinwas the Iran Desk Officer for
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the
U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a
Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8706/iran-bases-russian Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

And demonstrates how the Left serves the Islamic supremacist agenda.

London’s new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, is allocating over two million dollars (£1,730,726) to an “online hate crime hub” enabling police to track and arrest “trolls” who “target…individuals and communities.” There can be no doubt, given the nature of the British political establishment today, which “trolls” these new Thought Police will be going after, and which “communities” will be protected from “hate speech.” “Islamophobia,” which David Horowitz and I termed “the thought crime of the totalitarian future,” is now going to bring down upon the hapless “trolls” the wrath of London’s Metropolitan police force -- and this totalitarian new initiative shows yet again how easily the Leftist and Islamic supremacist agendas coincide and aid each other.

“The Metropolitan police service,” said a police spokesman, “is committed to working with our partners, including the mayor, to tackle all types of hate crime including offences committed online.” Given the fact that Khan, in a 2009 interview, dismissed moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms” and has numerous questionable ties to Islamic supremacists, it is unlikely that he will be particularly concerned about “hate speech” by jihad preachers (several of whom were just recently welcomed into a Britain that has banned foes of jihad, including me).

And the “partners” of the London police are likely to include Tell Mama UK, which says on its website: “we work with Central Government to raise the issues of anti-Muslim hatred at a policy level and our work helps to shape and inform policy makers, whilst ensuring that an insight is brought into this area of work through the systematic recording and reporting of anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes.” Tell Mama UK has previously been caught classifying as “anti-Muslim hate incidents and crimes” speech on Facebook and Twitter that it disliked. Now it will have the help of the London police to do that.

“The purpose of this programme,” we’re told, “is to strengthen the police and community response to this growing crime type.” This “crime type” is only “growing” because Britain has discarded the principle of the freedom of speech, and is committing itself increasingly to the idea that “hate speech” is objectively identifiable, and should be restricted by government and law enforcement action. Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003 criminalizes “using [a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and no groups are better at manifesting public annoyance than Islamic advocacy groups. A pastor in Northern Ireland, James McConnell, ran afoul of this law in 2014 when he dared to criticize Islam in a sermon; he was acquitted after an 18-month investigation and a trial, but the Metropolitan police will not want to be seen as wasting their new “hate speech” money; others will not be as fortunate as McConnell.

Behind the push for “hate speech” laws is, of course, the increasingly authoritarian Left. Increasingly unwilling (and doubtless unable) to engage its foes in rational discussion and debate, the Left is resorting more and more to the Alinskyite tactic of responding to conservatives only with ridicule and attempts to rule conservative views out of the realm of acceptable discourse. That coincides perfectly with the ongoing initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to intimidate the West into criminalizing criticism of Islam.

This is not the first time that a Sharia imperative and a Leftist one coincided during the relatively brief (so far) mayoral tenure of Sadiq Khan. The London Evening Standard reported on June 13 that “adverts which put Londoners under pressure over body image are to be banned from the Tube and bus network.” This was because “Sadiq Khan announced that Transport for London would no longer run ads which could cause body confidence issues, particularly among young people.”

Said Khan: “As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. Nobody should feel pressurised, while they travel on the Tube or bus, into unrealistic expectations surrounding their bodies and I want to send a clear message to the advertising industry about this.”

And so no more ads featuring women in bikinis on London buses. People often puzzle about how the hard Left and Islamic supremacists can make common cause, when they have such differing ideas of morality; Khan’s ad ban showed how. The Left’s concern with “body-shaming” and not putting people “under pressure over body image” meshed perfectly with the Sharia imperative to force women to cover themselves in order to remove occasions of temptation for men.

What next? Will London women be forced to cover everything except their face and hands (as per Muhammad’s command) so as not to put others “under pressure over body image”? And if they are, will anyone who dares to complain about what is happening to their green and pleasant land be locked up for “hate speech” by London’s new Thought Police?

Welcome to Sadiq Khan’s London. Shut up and put on your hijab.

Robert SpencerSource: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263887/londons-muslim-mayor-introduces-thought-police-robert-spencer Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

And strangely, it’s a distant country that wants to do anything about it.

Israel has a history of helping, sometimes saving, Jewish
communities in distress. The idea that Israel is responsible for all
Jews has a special place in the Israeli ethos.

This week the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset held a meeting
to discuss the case of a Jewish community in distress. The bipartisan
meeting was jointly called by MK Anat Berko of the right-of-center Likud
Party and MK Nachman Shai of the left-of-center opposition party
Zionist Union. Strangely, the Jewish community in question was
not one living in a failed state or an oppressive dictatorship.
Instead, the focus of the meeting was on the United States—specifically,
the Jewish students at its universities.

American
universities are, of course, a major arena of anti-Israeli activity
including Israel Apartheid Weeks, BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and
Sanctions) advocacy, and the silencing—often through violent
disruption—of Israeli or pro-Israeli speakers.

The Knesset members were told that:

· Jewish students in institutions such as NYU, the University of
Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, the University of Oklahoma, Harvard,
Claremont College in Los Angeles, Vassar College in New York, and many
others have been subjected to harassment by BDS and Students for Justice
in Palestine activists, including the taping of eviction notices to their doors.
Jewish students who have approached campus administrations for help say
they avoid taking action. In one case, at NYU, some anti-Jewish
students who had posted “eviction notices” were expelled.

· Students for Justice in Palestine has been compiling lists
of Jewish students on American and Canadian campuses with details of
their dorm addresses, raising real concern about the students’ safety.

· The universities claim to oppose anti-Israeli and antisemitic
activity—and, of course, abuse of any kind on a racial, ethnic,
religious, gender, or sexual-orientation basis, to the point of
providing “safe spaces” and the like for students who feel they have
been offended. Yet, in reality, it’s open season for students who engage
in such activity as long as it’s directed at Israel or Jews. At the University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
students and former students tied to Students for Justice in Palestine
and the Muslim Students Association have praised Hitler, threatened
violence, incited violence, and endorsed terror organizations in
social-media posts. Jewish groups in Tennessee have expressed “anger, disappointment and worry” at the university’s “tepid response” to complaints.

· Out of 941 reported antisemitic incidents in the U.S. in 2015, 90
occurred on university campuses. Those 90 marked an increase of almost
100% from 47 in 2014. Amnon Goldstof, head of an Israeli
reserve-soldiers NGO call Reservists on Duty that has recently toured
the U.S., told the Knesset committee that “Jewish students are the most
persecuted minority on [U.S.] campuses.”

· MK Berko said that
it has become almost impossible for Israeli or pro-Israeli speakers to
address students at U.S. campuses. She told the committee
that “when she was supposed to give a lecture on a US college campus,
it had to be moved because protesters blocked the hall where it was
supposed to take place.” Also attending the meeting was Tzahi Gabrieli
of the Strategic Affairs Ministry, who “said the physical intimidation
of the sort Berko faced is the most common on campuses.”

The
latter part of the meeting, in which Gabrieli detailed the Strategic
Affairs Ministry’s approach to countering the anti-Jewish phenomena, was
held behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, New Jersey governor Chris Christie has signed a law prohibiting the state’s public worker pension fund from investing in companies that boycott Israel and support BDS.

New Jersey thereby becomes one of over a dozen states that have passed
anti-BDS laws this year. This is a welcome and laudable development. It
is, though, strangely discordant with a situation where
“pro-Palestinian” activists are allowed to attack Jews on U.S. campuses.
Even stranger is that a distant, foreign country—Israel—is taking upon
itself the task of doing something about it.

The time for the U.S. authorities to crack down on these thugs is now.

P. David Hornikis a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva and author of the book Choosing Life in Israel. His memoir, Destination Israel: Coming of Age and Finding Peace in the Middle East, is forthcoming from Liberty Island later this year.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263880/pro-palestinian-thugs-attack-jews-us-campuses-p-david-hornik Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Foreign Ministry director general instructs diplomats not to hold contacts with Israeli journalists over Haaretz report on IAEA conference.

Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold

Hadas Parush/Flash 90

The
Foreign Ministry's director general, Dore Gold, on Thursday banned all
Israeli diplomats in Israel and abroad from holding contacts with
Israeli journalists, in the wake of a Haaretz report that Arab states would not seek a vote regarding Israel's nuclear arms at next month's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior Foreign Ministry official told Haaretz late on Thursday that Gold became furious when he saw the report and convened an urgent meeting in his office.

He reportedly raged over what he called a "leak," even though most of
the information in the report was unclassified. The report had cited a
cable sent to several Israeli embassies abroad.

At the end of the meeting Gold ordered the release of new rules
forbidding any contact with the Israeli media, but did not extend the
ban to the foreign press. Following the meeting, Gilad Cohen, the deputy
director general, and Emanuel Nahshon, the ministry spokesman, sent a
telegram to all Foreign Ministry workers in Israel and abroad containing
the new rules.

"In light of recent events, in which unauthorized contact with
Israeli journalists was made, we seek to repeat and refine the rule,"
the letter stated in a copy obtained by Haaretz.

"No contact is to be made by ministry workers in Israel or abroad
with any representatives of the Israeli press. In any request by an
Israeli journalist you must turn to the ministry spokesman and receive
instructions," it added.

The move was criticized by MK Nachman Shai (Zionist Union), who heads
the caucus for the strengthening of Israel's diplomatic relations.

"Hysteria is running wild at the Foreign Ministry," said Shai, according to Haaretz.
"What has been left there, after they stripped [the ministry] of its
power and responsibilities? To fight in the media. This is ridiculous
and sad."Arutz Sheva StaffSource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/216635 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The irony is that these censors and would-be censors, such as the European Commission, the Dutch and Austrian courts, Facebook, Twitter are using their freedom of expression to suggest that someone else be robbed of his freedom of expression.

Recently, the BBC stripped the name Ali from Munich's mass-murderer so that he would not appear to be a Muslim.

Throughout history, it is the minorities or the lone voices that need from the majority to allow everyone to question, comment on and criticize opinions with which they disagree. Freedom to be wrong, heretical or "blasphemous" -- as we have seen with Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Darwin or Alan Turing -- is the only way that civilisation can grow.

Not to allow differing points of view only entrenches positions by depriving people of the opportunity to hear anything that contradicts them. For those doing the censoring, that is doubtless the point.

It would be a fair assessment to conclude that many people consider some statements not what they would like to hear -- whether by Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, Ingrid Carlqvist, Douglas Murray, Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Theo van Gogh, the Mohammad cartoonists, Stéphane Charbonnier and other editors at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, among others. To say their remarks are sometimes regarded as controversial would be an understatement. Often, they are vociferous and vocal critics of extremist Islam, immigration, censorship and other policies -- and they have been accused of Islamophobia, hate speech, and inflaming racial and religious tensions. Several have been threatened with jail and death. Some have been murdered for their warnings.Importantly, though, none of them has ever directly incited violence against a religion, ethnic minority, or sexual orientation.Do not these voices, however repellent to some, deserve the chance to be heard without threat of retaliation? Their opinions are often not of the mainstream, but should that lead to censorship, death, or for Wilders and Sabaditsch-Wolff, court trials, for expressing their views?On May 31, the European Commission announced its decision to control s-called "hate speech."

As democratic societies, we presumably believe that what strengthens our democracies, and separates free societies from the many authoritarian regimes, is free speech: the ability to air thoughts freely without fear of punishment. There is a saying that the founder of civilization was the first person who threw a word instead of a stone.Throughout history, it is the minorities or the lone voices that need from the majority to allow everyone to question, comment on and criticize opinions with which they disagree. Freedom to be wrong, heretical or "blasphemous" -- as we have seen with Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Darwin or Alan Turing -- is the only way that civilisation can grow.All of us are free not to listen to people with whom we disagree. We are also free to expose their arguments as false. Currently, those who defend free expression are not discussing ideas; they are discussing whether or not one should have a right to speak. Censorship moves debate away from the issues, then the issues remain undiscussed.The irony is that these censors and would-be censors, such as the European Commission, the Dutch and Austrian courts, Facebook and Twitter are using their freedom of expression to suggest that someone else be robbed of his freedom of expression.If there is no discussion of ideas, we must ask which ideas are acceptable and which are not, and with such questions, we move into the territory of Orwellian thought crime, which is where the proponents of censorship apparently want us to be. George Orwell's 1984 was not a manual; it was a stark warning about authoritarianism and censorship.Is it possible that the censors may wish not to discuss ideas because they fear the answers?When we present uncomfortable truths, or even untruths, they need to be heard, such as those who argued the world was flat or that vaccinations caused smallpox. It was only freedom of expression that enabled the abolition of slavery, or that supported the theory of evolution, voting rights for women, the Civil Rights Act, or equal opportunity for marriage for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) individuals.Freedom of expression is the tool that allows those who challenge injustice, prejudice and extremism the chance at least to present their case.If we never listened to what we find uncomfortable, we would remain stagnant, probably with unbending ideas.As unpleasant as it may be to listen to opinions that might differ from ours, the alternative, to suffocate free speech, is worse -- and incalculably more corrosive to civilization. If the violence carried out in the name of Islam poses a serious threat to the security of the Western World, or if new arrivals in a country are heavily involved in criminal activity, such as trafficking in drugs or humans and are filling the prisons disproportionately to the rest of society, those seem problems that it should be the duty of any citizen to point out. One might wish that these were not true, but the first step in correcting any problem is to be able to state it.Censorship, by suppressing discussion of problems, therefore fails, counter-productively, to tackle what is causing them. Stifling discussion will not make the problem go away. Meanwhile, it festers and grows worse.One cannot have discourse if there is no opportunity for opposition. We are now seeing European courts, the European Commission, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the UN Human Rights Council seek to silence those whose views they oppose.It even turned out, at least in Germany last September, that "hate speech" apparently included posts criticizing mass migration. It would seem, therefore, that just about anything anyone finds inconvenient can be labelled as "racist" or "hate speech."Censoring, ironically, ultimately gives the public an extremely legitimate grievance, and could even set up the beginning of a justifiable rebellion.There is currently a worrying trend. Facebook, evidently attempting to manipulate what news people receive, recently censored the Swedish commentator Ingrid Carlqvist by deleting her account, then censored Douglas Murray's eloquent article about Facebook's censorship of Carlqvist. Recently, the BBC stripped the name Ali from Munich's mass-murderer so that he would not appear to be a Muslim.

Yet, a page called "Death to America & Israel", which actively incites violence against Israel, is left uncensored. Facebook, it seems, agrees that calling for the annihilation of the Jewish state is acceptable, but criticism of Islam is not. While pages that praise murder, jihadis, and anti-Semitism remain, pages that warn the public of the violence that is now often perpetrated in the name of Islam, but that do not incite violence, are removed.Even in the United States, there was a Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives, H. Res. 569, attempting to promote the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation's Defamation of Religion/anti-blasphemy laws, to criminalize any criticism of "religion" – but meaning Islam.Yesterday, at an airport, an advertisement for Facebook read, "A place to debate." Should it not instead have read, "A place to debate, but only if we agree with you"?

We should fear all censorship whenever and wherever we find it. We should welcome the right of anyone to speak. Not to allow differing points of view only entrenches positions by depriving people of the opportunity to hear anything that contradicts them. For those doing the censoring, that is doubtless the point.But instead should we not be asking: who will be next? If voices, one by one, are silenced, who will be left to speak?

Robbie Travers, a political commentator and consultant, is Executive Director of Agora, former media manager at the Human Security Centre, and a law student at the University of Edinburgh.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8595/right-to-dissent Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Instead of pandering to blacks by promising more
government benefits, which has been the policy of Democrats and most
Republicans since LBJ, Trump challenged blacks to analyze that the
Democrat policies have done little to help the majority of blacks

Yesterday, in Milwaukee, Donald
Trump announced a bold plan to win black votes and help blacks help
themselves. Instead of pandering to blacks by promising more
government benefits, which has been the policy of Democrats and most
Republicans since LBJ, Trump challenged blacks to analyze that the
Democrat policies have done little to help the majority of blacks,
especially blacks in the cities that have been governed by Democrat
mayors for years, such as Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia,
etc. And Democrat policies at the national level, such as “free” trade
and excessive taxes and regulations on business and not enforcing
immigration laws, have hurt the economy. This has resulted in fewer
jobs for black as well as whites, especially entry level jobs.

In
addition to being the correct economic approach, Trump’s approach is
also smart politics. Trump has to carry the battleground states of
Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, in addition to Florida, Virginia, and
North Carolina. To win Pennsylvania, Trump has to win black votes in
Philadelphia, to win in Ohio, Trump has to win black votes in Cleveland,
and to win in Wisconsin, Trump has to win black votes in Milwaukee.

Blacks
are in the same position as labor unions. Both have supported and voted
Democrats for so long that the Democrats’ politicians take their votes
for granted and only pay lip service to them. Part of Reagan’s winning
coalition were the “Reagan Democrats” consisting of union members
dissatisfied by the economy and weak foreign policy under Jimmy Carter.

Trump
is attempting to get “Trump Democrats” by appealing to blacks who
suffer from high crime rates and unemployment in the cities.

J. MarsoloSource: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/trump_going_after_black_votes.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

People
who really believe that black lives matter will not encourage behavior
that will legally get black people shot or run over.

Black
Lives Matters' response to the shooting of a black suspect who
allegedly pointed a firearm at a police officer is a declaration of open
season on black people who act on BLM's less responsible advice.

During
the chase, [Sylville] Smith pulled out a stolen pistol that was fully
loaded with stolen ammunition, and Smith raised the pistol to the
officer. The officer ordered Smith to drop the gun and shot when he did
not comply.

The police officer's restraint was excessive to the point where he jeopardized his own life. A demonstration at FrontSight
showed unequivocally why he should have fired the instant Smith began
to raise the weapon. A student asked whether one should order a suspect
to drop his weapon if the suspect has the weapon down at his side and
has not yet aimed it. An instructor made sure everybody was wearing
hearing protection, drew his weapon, held it down at his side, and had
somebody else order him to drop it. The other person did not complete
the word "drop" before the instructor fired a round into a target in
front of the backstop. That underscores how quickly somebody can kill
you with a drawn gun. Nobody has a legal or moral obligation to find
out, possibly the hard way, whether the bad guy's skills are comparable
to those of an experienced firearm instructor.

It
turns out, by the way, that the police officer also is black, which
means that black lives seem to matter only if they are not the lives of
black people whom BLM calls pigs,
as in "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." BLM has furthermore
shown its true contempt for black lives by inciting situations in which
far more black people will be justifiably killed.

When Words Equal a Deadly Threat: Disparity of Force

I
cannot give legal advice, but the laws on armed self-defense are
largely consistent from one state to another. You can use deadly force
on another person only when you believe reasonably, as defined by law,
that the individual has menaced you with death or serious bodily injury.
You can never use deadly (or other) force due to mere suspicion, or to
punish another person; the latter is the prerogative of the judicial
system.

It
is very easy to cross the line at which the law's hypothetical
reasonable person believes his or her life to be in danger. The
aggressor needs to do exactly two simple things to step over this line
to be legally shot dead, or put in the hospital, on the spot. The first
is to make a verbal or visual threat ("I'm going to kill you!," "Give
me your wallet!," or menace another person with a deadly weapon), and
the second is to display a credible means of putting that threat into
effect.

As
an example, the words "I'm going to kill you!" may constitute a crime
such as menacing or a terroristic threat, but they do not justify a
lethal response if the speaker has no credible way to put them into
effect. An unarmed suspect, or even one who brandishes a knife from
across a wide street, cannot carry out his threat. If he brandishes a
gun as Sylville Smith apparently did, the threat and the means of
carrying it out become one and the same, and the target of the
aggression can open fire with no discussion or delay whatsoever.

The factor that could easily kill a lot of BLM people legally is what the law calls "disparity of force." Police instructor Massad Ayoob
provides an excellent description of this concept. It means that the
law assumes that a larger and stronger assailant does not need a weapon
to kill or maim his intended victim, and the same assumption applies to
multiple assailants. A 120-pound woman could easily be well within her
rights to shoot a 180-pound man who assaults and batters her with
nothing but his hands. A man might similarly be entitled to shoot two
or more men who attack him with nothing but their hands.

Here are actual video
and audio from the recent civil disturbances in Milwaukee. The chants
of "black power!" are sanctioned and protected by the First Amendment.
At about 0:39, however, a demonstrator says something about beating up
every white person. At about 0:52, somebody yells, "He white! Beat his
head." That's a violent threat, and the presence of more than one
potential aggressor adds disparity of force. These are the two
ingredients necessary for a justifiable homicide.

This
doesn't mean that the white person in question should shoot if the mob
lets him walk away, but the instant one begins to rush him, he could
legally shoot that individual on the spot not only because of the
reasonable prospect of support from other aggressors, but also because
the attack's leader could disarm him and kill him with his own weapon.
Somebody who is so deranged as to charge a drawn gun clearly means
death or serious harm to its owner, which is why a police officer shot
Michael Brown for allegedly trying to disarm him. That would be my decision as a juror if a prosecutor had the poor judgment to bring the case to trial, anyway.

"They
beating up every white person" from these street thugs is meanwhile to
any armed Caucasian what "they lynching every n-----" from a gang of
Klansmen would be to any armed black person. While it might not,
depending on the distance between the thugs and the armed citizen in
question, justify gunfire, it would certainly justify a Condition Red
response such as drawing and arming a weapon. Intelligent and
responsible people don't put other people into Condition Red, because
doing so is a good way to end up in the hospital or in the ground.

Fire Also Is a Deadly Weapon

In this video,
Sylville Smith's sister counsels other black people to burn down not
their own neighborhood, but the suburbs instead. The legality of deadly
force to protect only property from arson varies from state to state.
Don't mess with Texas if you're an arsonist, though, and even anti-Second Amendment New York State says
a person "may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson." When I took a gun safety class in New
York some time ago, however, the instructor said the building had to be
occupied to justify deadly force. This was clearly because arson of an
empty building threatens only property unless the fire spreads, while
arson of an occupied one menaces human life and safety. Even if the
arsonist is not greeted with deadly force, however, he or she is still
guilty of a serious felony that is good for a long prison sentence.

The
takeaway is that any BLM people who act on this woman's incitement are
asking to be greeted with handgun, shotgun, or rifle fire if they set
occupied homes and businesses on fire. A firebomb through a window,
unlike a prowler who lurks around a building but cannot enter, is a
clear and present danger to the occupants.

Run Over Anybody Who Tries to Pull You from Your Car

Olaf Ekberg
reports, "Several videos show white drivers being stopped in the middle
of the street and the 'protesters' attempting to pull them out of their
vehicles." Recall that a similar gang beating sent truck driver Reginald Denny
to the hospital, so we again have a threat of death or serious bodily
injury plus the means (disparity of force) to put it into effect. In
this case, the law-abiding defender does not need a firearm; he needs
only his car's accelerator pedal. Massad Ayoob advises in The Gravest Extreme:

"You
are controlling a two-ton bludgeon. Put your car in gear, shout a
warning, beep the horn, and drive. Start slowly unless the rocks are
already flying through the windows. If that is the case, move. Don't
try to deliberately run anyone down; that is, don't swerve out of the
way to put your wheels to your assailants."

Somebody
who is not blocking your path does not threaten your safety, so you are
not legally justified in going out of your way to run him down. If,
however, a rock-throwing attacker insists on blocking your path to
prevent your escape, Ayoob adds, "[G]o over the man in front of you."
This policy would have saved Reginald Denny from a beating, and it will
save anybody else who finds himself or herself in a similar situation.

People
who really believe that black lives matter will not encourage behavior
that will legally get black people shot or run over. It is also to be
remembered that Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee have both endorsed this organization, and that is something voters need to consider carefully in November.

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management
including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing
productivity and quality.Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/08/black_lives_matter_encourages_justifiable_homicide_of_black_people.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The bill would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world.”

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.

These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.

Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

And Muslims would not.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization", praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the "Moslem conquerors" whose depredations had caused Christianity to have "practically vanished from the two continents."

While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the "mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian."

In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.

Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.

The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.

Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.

Though the law today is seldom enforced.

American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.

It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.

A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”

To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.

In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.

The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.

“You believe in the Koran?" asked President Stump.

"Thank Allah, yes," responded the men in chorus.

“The Koran teaches polygamy?" continued the Inspector through an interpreter.

President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.

None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.

Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.

Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.

A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization”.

Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.

American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.

Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263879/when-teddy-roosevelt-banned-muslims-america-daniel-greenfield Follow Middle East and Terrorism on TwitterCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.